[PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison

[Toby Moncaster <[e-mail]>]

Adrian Farrel is keen to find out what the WG intentions are regarding the "other" WG encoding drafts. Just to remind everyone, the original idea was to have the baseline encoding and a set of 3 experimental encodings that built on it. Then Bob got RFC6040 published and we decided to push 3-in-1 encoding as the main standard. This left the other experimental encodings in limbo. They are:

draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-01 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-01>

draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-01 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-01>

These are both cited in the encoding comparison draft which poses some potential problems. Firstly we are not meant to refer to IDs in RFCs, secondly these have both long expired so will eventually disappear from any archives, thirdly I believe Michael may still want to use PSDM experimentally?

There would seem to be 3 possible courses of action:

1) We ask for these to be published as historical RFCs so they can be referenced from encoding comparison
2) we ask for these to be published as experimental schemes so they can be referenced and can be used
3) we remove all reference from the encoding comparison

OPtion 1 is probably the easiest as (hopefully) they would not need too much updating. Option 2 requires more work on the drafts (in light of the fact we are obsolete RFC5696 which they both depend on), but would at least hold the door open to future work. Option 3 partially defeats the point of the encoding comparison document. 

I have a very slight preference for option 1, but what do other people think? 

Toby